Subjective Morality?

[Angrboda]

Is a waterfall an objectively artistic waterfall if someone has decided to consider it artistically?  I wouldn't say so, though some artists would likely try to argue so.  But this is because they cannot conceive of a world view in which their subjective evaluation is not shared by everyone else.  They therefore consider it objective.  Much the same as the existence of witches, of God, of the superiority of the White Man, of the moral superiority of women, of the centrism of the Earth, and a million other wrong ideas have been considered objectively true because of systemic ignorance.

I don't think that's a fair characterization of many that feel that art has some objective basis, certainly not all. It seems little more than a straw man you pulled out of your ass so that you could beg the question. Regardless, the question is why you would say that there is nothing objectively artistic about say, a waterfall. Your simply giving us your opinion is fine as far as it goes, but you have given us nothing but in this thread. What are your reasons for believing, not that morals aren't objective, but that morals cannot refer to some objective fact. I've given you the analogous case of numbers, and other than a clumsy attempt at a nominalist defense, you've avoided that subject as well.